Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotent annotations, it discloses non-obvious behavior: the 'complete' flag meaning partial reads, that 'earnedFeesQu' is already embedded in the removal payout, and that values are pool-price estimates that can diverge from thin-market sale prices. This is exactly the surplus context annotations cannot carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and return fields are front-loaded in the first sentence, with caveats (complete, earnedFeesQu, estimate) following. It is denser than strictly necessary but nearly every clause adds usable detail rather than filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields, explaining the partial-read flag, and warning about estimate semantics. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single documented 'identity' parameter, so the schema already does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description adds only a marginal note that any 60-letter identity works because the data is public chain data.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a precise verb+resource+scope: 'Every QSwap pool a wallet has liquidity in', then enumerates the returned quantities (liquidity units, share, removal payout, QU value). An agent can immediately distinguish this wallet-position tool from pool/asset listing siblings like qmax_list_pools or qmax_pool_detail.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly bounds the tool's role: read-only, and 'adding or removing liquidity is done in the QMax app with a wallet; this tool never builds or signs one.' That cleanly excludes mutation use cases, though it does not name a specific alternative sibling tool for the write path.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.